alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# **U.S. STANDARD GENERAL LEDGER (USSGL)**

**VOTING BALLOT #20-01**

The USSGL staff presented the Draft Voting Ballot #20-01 at the February 13, 2020 USSGL IRC meeting.  

Please indicate the agency’s vote by marking “Yes” or “No” on the voting ballot for each proposal to revise the USSGL account. (Please provide a detailed justification for all “No” votes.)

USSGL Board Members will vote using Survey Monkey, or e-mail their scanned ballot to **USSGLTeam@fiscal.treasury.gov**. The Survey Monkey link will be provided to the voting USSGL IRC board members.  

Fiscal Service must receive the agency’s votes by **EST. 12:00 PM February 20, 2020.**

**FISCAL YEAR 2020**

**ADD:					    	  CHANGE:**

****

**None** 						   	219100    Pg. 2       Yes _____     No _____ 

**DELETE:	NON-TECHNICAL CHANGE**(DOES NOT REQUIRE A VOTE): 

Name: ______________________________________________

Agency: _____________________________________________

Date: _____________________________

**PROPOSED CHANGES TO USSGL ACCOUNTS FOR FISCAL 2020**

**Proposed Modification to USSGL Account Title and Definition**

**Account Title:**~~Employee Health Care Liability~~ Liability for Employer Benefits and Claims Incurred but Not Reported 

**Account Number:**219100 

**Normal Balance:**Credit

**Definition:**The amount of claims or benefits on behalf of employees and/or veterans that occurred during a particular time period, including claims incurred but ~~that have~~ not yet ~~been~~reported or submitted to an insurer. This account does not close at year-end.

**Justification:**The current USSGL 219100 “Employee Health Care Liability Incurred but Not Reported” implies that only health care claims or benefits on behalf of federal employees should be recorded; the modification clarifies that the account is for claims/benefits on behalf of both active employees and veterans.  Further, the Definition is expanded to include reported benefit claims incurred but not yet reported.

1Draft Voting Ballot		February 13, 2020

2Draft Voting Ballot		February 13, 2020
EXHIBIT 32.2








CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS







I, Brian Chaiken, Chief Financial Officer of Z Trim Holdings, Inc., an Illinois corporation (the "Registrant"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1) the Report on Form 10-Q for the period of the Registrant from January 1, 2011 through March 31, 2011  (the "Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Dated:  May 13, 2011


By                 /s/ Brian Chaiken


Brian Chaiken


Chief Financial Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Independence Lead Mines Company (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A No. 2 for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bernard C. Lannen, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition, and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ Bernard C. Lannen President  Dated: December 13, 2007
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of American Banknote Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Steven G. Singer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to my knowledge that:

    (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

    (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





                              /s/ Steven G. Singer
                              -----------------------
                              Steven G. Singer
                              Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of**

**Title 18 Of The United States Code**

 

I, J. Patrick Spainhour, the Chief Executive Officer of The ServiceMaster Company, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The ServiceMaster Company.

 

 
|   | /s/  J. Patrick Spainhour |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | J.  Patrick Spainhour     |
|   | May 14,  2008        |

 

1
May 22, 1962

No. 66791.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/17733 and 59/21525.

Protests abandoned April 12,1962. (Not published.) (Initial No. 226503-K.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
(Reap. Dec. 8142)

#### Barnett Internat’l Fwders., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. Int’l. AD 961474.

(Decided July 24, 1952)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson (Joshua M. Davidson*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff in the above described case and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, defendant, subject to the approval of the Court, that one of the pieces included in the item described in red ink on the invoice accompanying the entry covered by the reappraisement number noted above as “16 pcs Item B 398 D. M. each less *33%%*disct, net pk’d,” is in fact one Ikonta camera valued at 235 Deutsche Marks each, less *33%%*discount, net packed and should have been included in item “D” as shown in red ink on said invoice at 235 D. M. each less *33%%*discount, net pkd.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the foreign value as defined in Section 402~(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 is the proper basis for value of this one Ikonta camera and that such value is 235 Deutsche Mark less 33)4 % discount, net packed and that there is and was no higher export value.

> *449IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal is abandoned as to all other items except the item noted above and that this case is submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of one Ikonta camera, which is one of the pieces included in the item described in red ink on the invoice as “16 pcs. item B 398. D. M. each less 33%% disct., net, pk’cL,” and that such value was 235 deutschemarks, less 33% per centum discount, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 65449.

#### Momoi Co. *v.*United States,

protests 60/4300, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of fish netting similar in all material respects to that involved in Abstract 63947, the merchandise was held dutiable at 25 percent under the provision in paragraph 923, as modified, for cotton fishing nets, by similitude. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of synthetic cord or twine similar in all material respects to the component material of the fish nets involved in said Abstract 63947, were held dutiable, depending upon the date of entry, at 35 percent under paragraph 912 of the act as synthetic cord or twine, similar in use to cotton cords, or at 33, 31%, or 30 percent under said paragraph, as modified.
# sf133_schp_2019

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-06	&"Arial,Bold"&9V SF 133/Sch P - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10March 2019
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTMCT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MARITRANS OPERATING COMPANY L.P. ) 

1 CV NO. 02-4429 

Plaintiff ) 

V. 1 

1 

CHRIS-MARINE USA, INC. 1 

) 

) ADMIRALTY 

Defendant 1 

REPLY OF MARITRANS OPERATING 

COMPANY L.P. TO COUNTERCLAIM 

Plaintiff Maritrans Operating Company L.P. (“Maritrans”), by and through its 

undersigned counsel, makes reply to the Counterclaim of defendant Chris Marine U.S.A., 

Inc., as follows: 

1. The averments in the Complaint are hereby incorporated herein as if set 

forth in full. 

2. Paragraph 2 of the Counterclaim is a conclusion of law to which neither 

admission nor denial need be made. 

3. Admitted. 

4. Denied. 

5. Denied. 

6. It is admitted that Maritrans has not paid Chris Marine, but it is denied that 

any amount is owed. 

7. Denied. 

WHEREFORE plaintiff demands: 

(a) judgment against Defendant, in an amount to be proved at trial, plus 

103973.00613/210903 1 lvl 

Case 2:02-cv-04429-RBS Document 4 Filed 11/27/2002 Page 1 of 3
interest and costs; and 

(b) such further relief as the court may deem just and equitable. 

Legal Counsel 

Maritrans Operating Company L.P. 

Two Harbour Place 

302 Knights Run Ave. 

Tampa, FL 33602 

Tel: (813) 209-0667 

Fax: (813) 221-2648 

JEFFREY S. MOLLER (Pa Bar 41049) 

Blank Rome Comisky & McCauley 

Four Perm Center Plaza 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2599 

Tel: (215) 569-5792 

Fax: (215) 832-5792 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Dated: November 27,2002 

103973.0061 3/21 09031 lvl 

Case 2:02-cv-04429-RBS Document 4 Filed 11/27/2002 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE 

This certifies that on 27th November 2002, I caused to be served by mail a true copy of 

the foregoing Reply of Maritrans Operating Company L.P. to Counterclaim upon the following 

Attorney: 

Stephen Calder, Esquire 

Palmer Biezup & Henderson LLP 

620 Chestnut Street 

Suite 956, Public Ledger Building 

Philadelphia, PA 19 106 

Attorneys for Chris Marine 

103973.0061 3/21 0903 1 Ivl 

Case 2:02-cv-04429-RBS Document 4 Filed 11/27/2002 Page 3 of 3
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128405 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128405 

COA: 250325 

Wayne CC: 03-003652-02 

JOHN WILLIAM FAIR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL WAYNE OAK,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0624 FCD DAD P

vs.

GOVERNMENT CLAIMS FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

BRANCH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 21, 2004 the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and granted

him leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, however, the

court finds that it too fails to state a cognizable claim.

In the order filed September 21, 2004, the court determined that plaintiff’s

original complaint was so vague and conclusory that the court was unable to determine whether

the action was frivolous or failed to state a claim. Because it appeared that plaintiff might be

alleging an Eighth Amendment medical care claim, plaintiff was provided the legal standards for

such a claim by the court. Plaintiff was also advised that the Government Claims Branch at 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00624-FCD-DAD Document 15 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Folsom State Prison was not a proper defendant for a § 1983 action because a suit against a state

agency was barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

In his amended complaint, plaintiff again names the Government Claims Branch

as the sole defendant. In addition, plaintiff again fails to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment

claim with respect to the medical care provided to him by prison authorities. In his amended

complaint plaintiff alleges that there was negligence in connection with the medical care

provided to him. In this regard, plaintiff appears to disagree with the treatment he has received

for his injured left knee. Although plaintiff was advised by the court in its prior order that a mere

difference of opinion regarding treatment between a prisoner and prison medical staff does not

give rise to a § 1983 claim, plaintiff has not cured this defect in his amended complaint. Plaintiff 

has also failed to allege facts demonstrating deliberate indifference to his medical care by state

actor.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

failure to state a claim. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 28, 2005.

DAD:4

oak0624.fsc

Case 2:04-cv-00624-FCD-DAD Document 15 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 32


SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

Richard M. Deneau, President and Chief Executive Officer and Darrin J.
Campbell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Anchor Glass
Container Corporation, hereby certify that:

         1.       The quarterly report of the registrant on Form 10-Q/A for the
quarter ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.       The information contained in the quarterly report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the registrant as of the dates and for the periods expressed in
the quarterly report.


Date:  November 3, 2003


/s/ Richard M. Deneau
-----------------------------------------------------------
Name: Richard M. Deneau
Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Darrin J. Campbell
-----------------------------------------------------------
Name: Darrin J. Campbell
Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 1 of 20

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 55 Att. 22

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 2 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 3 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 4 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 5 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 6 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 7 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 8 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 9 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 10 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 11 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 12 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 13 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 14 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 15 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 16 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 17 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 18 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 19 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-23 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 20 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE VIZCAINO, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0665 GEB KJM PS

vs.

STANISLAUS COUNTY SUPERIOR

COURT, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed December 27, 2004, plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed

with leave to file a second amended complaint. Since that time, plaintiff has been granted two

extensions of time in which to file a second amended complaint. The time allowed to plaintiff

for filing an amended complaint has expired. Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

Case 2:04-cv-00665-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 10, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

vizc0665.fta

Case 2:04-cv-00665-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To Section
906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report of GSV, Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ending  September 30, 2007 (the  "Report"),  I, Gilad Gat,
Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1) The Report fully complies with the  requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2) The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.


                                By: /s/ Gilad Gat
                                    -------------
                                    Gilad Gat
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    November 14, 2007
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 19, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00769

- CV

Rolando Rafael SAENZ and Alberto Ortiz

,

Appellant s

v.

LAS BLANCAS MINERALS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP , Pedro I. Saenz, Jr., as General Partner of Las Blancas Minerals Limited Partnership, Pedro I. Saenz, Jr., Individually, Maria Graciela Saenz Martinez, as General Partner of Las Blancas Minerals, L.P., San Pedrominerals, Limited Partnership, as General Partner of Blanca Minera ls, L.P., Saenz Management Co., Limited Liability Company, as General Partner of Las Blancas Investments, Limited Partnership, Appellees

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CVQ002991D3

Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The docketing statement was due on November 5, 2018, but has not been filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 32.1(a) (providing an appellant in a civil case shall file a docketing statement promptly upon filing the notice of appeal). We order appellant to file the docketing statement by November 29, 2018.

Furthermore, a filing fee of $205 was due when this appeal was fil ed, but it was not paid.

See Tex. Sup. Ct., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, In Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals,

and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- District Litigation , Docket No. 15

- 9158 (Aug. 28, 2015). The fee remains unpaid, and appellant has not filed a sworn statement of inability to afford payment of court costs.

We therefore order appellant, by November 29, 2018

, to either: (1) pay the filing fee; or (2) provide written proof to this court that appellant is indigent or otherwise excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from prepaying fees and costs. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 20.1 (providing that indigent party who complies with provisions of that rule may p roceed without advance payment of costs).

If appellant fails to respond satisfactorily within the time ordered, this appeal may be

dismissed without further notice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5 (providing appellate courts may enforcerule requiring payment of costs “by any order that is just”), 42.3(c) (permitting appellate courts

to dismiss an appeal when appellant fails to comply with a court order).

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of November, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court